coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 12 October 2005 the applicant was arrested and charged with assisting the President of a commercial bank in extorting a bribe from a company in order to give it a loan.
8.   On 16 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice no.29/13 (also known as Prison no. 13, former Prison no. 3) in Chişinău.
9.  On 3 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court prolonged the applicant's detention for a period of twenty days. The court found that
“... the criminal investigation is in its final phase; the final charges are to be submitted and the accused is to have access to the file. Taking into account the serious nature of the crime of which he is accused, the damaging effect of the deed and that, once aware of the contents of the file, the applicant could influence witnesses, destroy evidence and abscond from law enforcement authorities and the court, the court considers justified the prosecutor's request for prolonging the period of detention and rejects the lawyer's request for bail.”
On 9 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
10.  The applicant made a separate complaint regarding the initial period of his detention, until 3 February 2006 (the case of Ţurcan and Ţurcan v. Moldova, application no. 39835/05). In the present application, he relies on the events subsequent to that date.
11.  On 20 February 2006 the case file was submitted to the trial court. On 6 March 2006 the first hearing took place, during which the applicant submitted a habeas corpus request. He relied on Article 186 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 15 below) and on the cases of Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000‑III) and Ječius v. Lithuania (no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000‑IX), and claimed that, following the referral of the case to the trial court on 20 February 2006, his detention did not have a legal basis. He also complained about the inhuman conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13 and referred to the findings of the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in respect of that remand centre.
12.  The Buiucani District Court rejected his request because
“[the applicant is] accused of a serious crime and the court does not find at the present time any ground for changing or annulling the preventive measures”.
13.  On 28 September 2006 the Buiucani District Court accepted the applicant's request for release, relying on new relevant circumstances of the case, namely that most evidence had already been examined in court or recorded by the prosecution and that the applicant's health had worsened, and surgery was needed. On 31 October 2006 the same court gave the applicant permission to undergo medical treatment abroad.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Edirne.
5.  At the material time, the applicant was the owner and editor of a local newspaper published in Trabzon, the Özgür Karadeniz (“The Free Black Sea”).
6.  On 15 January 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
7.  On 20 January 1995 he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand.
8.  On 10 March 1995 the public prosecutor at the Erzincan State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with twenty-one other persons. The applicant was accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party- Front). According to the indictment, following his arrest, the applicant's house was searched by police officers who found illegal periodicals, newspapers, books and a bullet. The public prosecutor also alleged that the applicant had published a newspaper containing propaganda in support of the DHKP-C, participated in illegal demonstrations, put up posters, distributed leaflets supporting the DHKP-C and carried out activities in the Karadeniz University for the recruitment of new members for the illegal organisation.
9.  On 13 March 1995 the applicant was transferred to the Erzurum special type prison.
10.  On different dates in 1995, five other criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant before various courts, with charges of disseminating separatist propaganda and incitement to hatred and hostility through the medium of his newspaper.
11.  The cases against the applicant and his co-accused were subsequently joined before the Erzincan State Security Court.
12.  Following promulgation of the Law no. 4210, which abolished the Erzincan State Security Court and established the Erzurum State Security Court, in 1997 the Erzurum State Security Court acquired jurisdiction over the case and the case-file was sent to it.
13.  On 27 November 1998 the Erzurum State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP-C. The court found that two articles published in Özgür Karadeniz on 15 November 1994 and 1 March 1995 contained separatist propaganda and incitement to hatred. It further found it established that the applicant had participated in illegal demonstrations, put up posters, distributed leaflets supporting the DHKP-C and carried out activities in the Karadeniz University for the recruitment of new members for the illegal organisation. The court sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.
14.  On 18 November 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 27 November 1998 in respect of the applicant.
15.  On 29 May 2004 the applicant was conditionally released from prison.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Neustift.
5.  In December 1999 the Neustift community (Gemeinde) requested a permit from the Rohrbach District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshaupt-mannschaft) to enlarge its canalisation system. At a hearing scheduled on 4 May 2000 the applicant, who had not been summoned as a party, filed objections and submitted that the project would interfere with his property rights as it would affect the drainage system on his real estates.
6.  On 15 June 2000, after having heard an official expert on water construction technology and biology, the Administrative Authority granted the requested permit. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Upper Austrian Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann).
7.  In the subsequent proceedings the Regional Governor ordered the expert to supplement his opinion which was then submitted to the applicant for comment.
8.  On 25 January 2001 the Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) dismissed the applicant's appeal. Referring to the supplemented expert opinion, the Regional Governor found that the project at issue would not affect the drainage system on the applicant's premises.
9.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).
10.  Having held an oral hearing, upon the applicant's request, the Administrative Court dismissed this complaint on 31 March 2005. It noted that the breach of the applicant's right to being summoned to be heard as a party before the District Administrative Authority had been remedied in the course of the proceedings. The applicant had been given an opportunity to submit comments and objections before the second instance and had thus been heard as a party. As to the remaining complaint concerning the alleged interference of the project with his property, the Administrative Court found that the applicant's general submissions could not disprove the conclusive findings of the expert. This decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 26 April 2005.
4.  On various dates each of the applicants received one or more final judgments awarding payments from a State-owned mining company (see appendix for details) and instituted enforcement proceedings to collect the payment.
5.  The judgments given in favour of the second and the third applicant were enforced on 24 December 2004 and 7 August 2006, respectively.
6.  The judgments given in favour of the other applicants remain fully or partly unenforced on account of the debtor-companies' lack of funds.
7.  Some of the applicants attempted to claim compensation against various State entities for the delay in the enforcement of the judgments given in their favour, however, these attempts have been to no avail.
8.  After the institution of the Convention proceedings, the second and the seventh applicants died. Their widows, Mrs Lidiya Mikhaylovna Volokhova and Mrs Galina Aleksandrovna Vashchenko, informed the Court that they wished to pursue the applications of their late husbands.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Vinnytsya.
5.  On 17 November 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position as a department manager (начальник бюро) of the Vinnytsya State Optical Mechanical Plant (“the Company,” Вінницький державний експериментальний оптико-механічний завод).
6.  On 17 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Vinnytsya (“the Leninsky Court,” Ленінський районний суд м. Вінниця), seeking his reinstatement and compensation for unlawful dismissal. On 3 June 1998 the Leninsky Court stayed the proceedings until resolution of another dispute between the applicant and the Company.
7.  On 27 March 2001 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed, as the aforementioned dispute had been resolved to his satisfaction. On 28 May 2001 the applicant complained to the Vinnytsya Regional Deparment of Justice (Управління юстиції Вінницької області) that the Leninsky Court had never responded to his request of 27 March 2001.
8.  On 6 June 2001 the Leninsky Court informed the applicant that on 26 January 1999 it had discontinued the consideration of his claims because of his repetitive failures to attend the hearings. In July 2001 the applicant appealed against this decision.
9.  On 19 September 2001 the Leninsky Court granted the applicant an extension for lodging his appeal, having noted that the applicant had not been informed about the decision of 26 January 1999 in due time.
10.  On 4 December 2001 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal,” Апеляційний суд Вінницької області) quashed the decision of 26 January 1999 on the ground that the Leninsky Court had not duly summoned the applicant to attend the hearings and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the Zamostyansky District Court of Vinnytsya (“the Zamostyansky Court,” Замостянський районний суд м. Вінниця).
11.  On 29 July 2002 the Zamostyansky Court dismissed the applicant's claims. On 27 August 2002 the applicant appealed against this judgment.
12.  On 17 December 2002 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 29 July 2002. In March 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation.
13.  On 18 March 2003 the Zamostyansky Court rejected the appeal for having being lodged out of time. The applicant appealed against this decision.
14.  On 14 May 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 18 March 2003. In June 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation against the decisions of 18 March and 14 May 2003.
15.  By omission of the court personnel, the applicant's cassation appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court only in June 2006.
16.  On 28 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.
4.  On 12 March 2003 the first applicant obtained a judgment of the Tarashcha Court (Таращанський районний суд Київської області) against the OJSC “Tarashcharayagropostach” (ВАТ “Таращарайагропостач”), awarding him 2,424.55 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
5.  On 19 March 2001 the second applicant obtained a judgment of the Oleksandriya Court (Олександрійський міський суд Кіровоградської області) against the OJSC “ATP-13506” (ВАТ АТП-13506), awarding him UAH 2,765.02[2] in salary arrears.
6.  These judgments were not appealed against, became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgments debts.
7.  On several occasions the bailiffs notified the applicants that they were unable to collect the full amounts of the awards, referring to the fact that financial assets of the debtor-companies were insufficient. They further explained that other assets could not be sold, as the State owned more than 25% of the debtor-companies' share capital. The companies were therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”. The first applicant attempted to challenge the alleged inactivity of the bailiffs and to institute criminal proceedings against the debtor-company's chief executive officer, however, his attempts were to no avail.
8.  By 10 June and 12 August 2005 the judgments given in favour of the second and the first applicant, respectively, were enforced in full.
4.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1951 respectively and live in Istanbul. The first applicant was the editor-in-chief of a weekly newspaper, Yedinci Gündem, and the second applicant was its owner.
5.  In August 2001, in the tenth issue of the newspaper, an article which contained an interview with Cemil Bayık, who was one of the leaders of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), was published. The relevant parts of the interview read as follows:
“Three years have passed since the PKK declared a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed and to contribute to the peace process. Subsequently, the PKK withdrew its armed forces out of Turkey to maintain peace. However, the state did not take any steps for democratisation or to solve the Kurdish problem.
...
The case brought against our leader Abdullah Öcalan is a case against the Kurdish people. Therefore, it is not our Prime Minister who wishes to be tried before the European Court of Human Rights, but it is our people. The law was violated in İmralı and, consequently, the death penalty imposed on Öcalan and on our people is not legitimate. All things considered, it is natural that our people have expectations from the European Court of Human Rights, the court of Europe which defends democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
...”
6.  On 10 September 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants. By referring to the above-mentioned paragraphs of the interview, the public prosecutor accused the applicants of having allowed the publication of the declarations of an illegal armed terrorist organisation. The charges were brought under Article 6 §§ 2 and 4 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism (Law no. 3713), additional Article 2 of the Press Law (Law no. 5680) and Article 36 of the Criminal Code.
7.  On 27 December 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, convicted the applicants as charged and fined them 2,034,900,000[1] Turkish liras (TRL) and TRL 4,069,800,000[2] respectively. The first instance court further ordered temporary closure of the newspaper for a period of fifteen days.
8.  The applicants appealed. On an unspecified date, the chief public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion on the merits of the applicants' appeal. The opinion was not notified to the applicants.
9.  On 21 May 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 27 December 2001.
10.  On 24 June 2002 the president of the Istanbul State Security Court sent the final judgment to the public prosecutor's office at the Istanbul State Security Court and requested that the order for the newspaper's closure be executed.
11.  On 15 July 2002 two police officers executed the order of closure by way of notification of the order in question to the first applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On 23 January 1975 the applicant bought part of a plot of land (plot no. 98) in the Çankaya District of Ankara. In implementation of a reconstruction plan (imar şuyulandırılması), on 21 January 1981 a part of the applicant's plot (173.92 sq. m.) was joined to another plot which had been used by the Ministry of Defence since 1962. This plot was given the number 5965/1 and registered in the applicant's name.
6.  Since this land was occupied by the Ministry of Defence, the applicant filed various petitions requesting the Ministry to expropriate it. On 6 September 1989 the Ministry informed the applicant that her land would be expropriated in the coming years.
7.  On 10 November 1999, relying on Article 38 of Law no. 2942, the Ministry of Defence lodged an application with the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for the annulment of the title deed of the applicant to plot no. 5965/1 and its registration in the Treasury's name. In response, the applicant lodged an application with the same court for compensation for the de facto expropriation. On an unspecified date, the case files were joined.
8.  Before the court, the Ministry of Defence submitted that it had occupied the disputed plot of land since 1962 and that, therefore, it should be registered under its name pursuant to Article 38 of Law no. 2942. In reply, the applicant stated that the date of de facto expropriation in respect of her plot of land was 21 January 1981 and that, therefore, Article 38 of Law no. 2942 was not applicable in her case.
9.  On 19 December 2000 the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction annulled the title deed of the applicant and ordered that the land be registered in the name of the Treasury. The court dismissed the applicant's request for compensation on the ground that it was time-barred. It held that the Ministry of Defence had had de facto possession of the property in question since 1962, and that the applicant should have brought a case within twenty years from this date in accordance with Article 38 of Law no. 2942.
10.  On 4 June 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant's request for the reversal of its decision was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 12 October 2001. The applicant was notified of this decision on 22 November 2001.
4.  The applicants were born in 1929. Mrs Arapova died in 2006. Mr Arapov lives in Voronezh. He decided to pursue the application of his late wife Mrs Arapova.
5.  From April 1998 to April 1999 the applicants received their old-age pensions, totalling approximately 377 and 430 Russian roubles (RUB) per month, several months in arrears.
6.  On 14 July 2000 each applicant lodged an action against the Sovetskiy District Social Security Authority of Voronezh for index-linking of their delayed pension payments in line with inflation.
7.  On 1 November 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicants' claims and awarded the applicants RUB 977.50 (Mrs Arapova) and RUB 1,117.61 (Mr Arapov). Both judgments came into force on 12 November 2000.
8.  The District Court issued writs of execution and forwarded them to the Sovetskiy District Bailiff's Service of Voronezh for execution.
9.  In April 2001 the Bailiff's Service returned the writs of execution to the applicants advising them to apply to the local office of the Federal Treasury. The Treasury refused to execute the judgments.
10.  In 2001-2003 the applicants applied to the Bailiff's Service on numerous occasions. The Bailiff's Service refused to accept the writs of execution because the defendant did not have funds.
11.  It was not before November 2005 that the writs of execution were accepted for payment by the Sovetskiy District Social Security Authority of Voronezh.
12.  The money awarded by the judgments was transferred to the applicants' bank accounts on 2 December 2005, and received by the applicants on 5 December 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  From June 1998 to April 1999 she received her old-age pension several months in arrears.
6.  The applicant lodged an action against the Levoberezhniy District Social Security Authority of Voronezh for index-linking of her delayed pension payments in line with inflation.
7.  On 24 November 2000 the Levoberezhniy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicant's claim and awarded her 1,101.02 Russian roubles. The judgment came into force on 5 December 2000.
8.  The applicant's requests for execution of the judgment were to no avail on the ground that the defendant did not have funds.
9.  The judgment was enforced on 2 December 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Marmaris.
6.  In 1984 the applicant concluded a construction contract with Mr G.D. whereby the applicant was to own 40 % of the flats constructed by Mr G.D. on her land.
7.  On 10 July 1985 Mr G.D. and the applicant's legal representative signed an additional contract and decided to sell the flats to Emlak Bank. Subsequently on 29 January 1986 the applicant filed an action with the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance against Mr G.D. She maintained that her legal representative had no right to sign such a contract and accordingly requested the annulment of the contract dated 10 July 1985 and the reimbursement of 132,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL).
8.  On 31 May 1990 the 5th Chamber Ankara Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 June 1991. However, upon the request of the applicant, on 26 December 1991 the Court of Cassation rectified its decision of 19 June 1991. The case was accordingly remitted to the first-instance court.
9.  In the meantime, the applicant brought another case against Mr G.D. before the 12th Chamber Ankara Civil Court of First Instance and requested liquidation of partnership. On 26 December 1994 the court ordered Mr G.D. to pay TRL 88,260,073 to the applicant. This judgment became final on 17 May 1996.
10.  On 28 May 1998 the 5th Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance ordered Mr G.D. to pay TRL 59,000,000, plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court's decision, running from 29 January 1986. The court dismissed the applicant's request for the payment of a further TRL 63,000,000 since it considered that this amount had already been calculated and included in the case before the 12th Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance.
11.  On 10 June 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first‑instance court.
12.  On 1 December 1999 the Court of Cassation dismissed the parties' request for rectification.